Wakilii

Seruwuge v Kinoni Traders Farmers Co-operative Savings & Credit Society Limited (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 302 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appeal out of time against a Taxing Officer's decision
Decision
Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed with costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Application for leave to appeal out of time against a Taxing Officer's decision dismissed where the applicant showed dilatory conduct and unexplained delay of three months. Applicant's counsel was absent during taxation proceedings despite having been given multiple opportunities, and the applicant himself attended and expressed willingness to pay costs by installment. Mistake of counsel does not constitute sufficient cause where the applicant showed lack of diligence in pursuing the matter and in following up after the taxation decision.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant sought leave to appeal out of time against a Taxing Officer's decision made on 7 October 2022 in Civil Suit No. 101 of 2015. The bill of costs was taxed at UGX 9,880,000 in the applicant's presence but in the absence of his advocate, Yawe Lawrence. The applicant claimed he instructed his advocate to appeal on the same day but was later informed that no appeal had been filed. The applicant filed the application for extension of time on 12 January 2023, approximately three months after the taxation decision. During taxation proceedings, the applicant had attended court on 30 September 2022 and 7 October 2022, but his advocate was absent on both occasions. At the taxation hearing, the applicant expressed willingness to pay the costs in installments of UGX 500,000 per month, which the respondent's lawyers rejected. The original civil suit had been filed in 2015.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has satisfied the requirements for grant of leave to appeal against the decision of a Taxing Officer out of time.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal Out of Time — Requirements for Grant
An application for leave to appeal out of time must show sufficient reason related to the inability or failure to take a particular step within the prescribed time, and the applicant must not be guilty of unexplained and inordinate delay in seeking the indulgence of the court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Taxation of Costs — Time Limit for Appeal Against Taxing Officer's Decision
An appeal against a decision of a Taxing Officer must be filed within thirty days under section 62(1) of the Advocates Act, and any appeal after thirty days requires leave of court under section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Mistake of Counsel — Dilatory Conduct
Where an applicant's counsel is repeatedly absent from court proceedings and the applicant himself shows dilatory conduct by failing to follow up on instructions given to counsel or to file an application for extension of time within a reasonable period after becoming aware of the omission, mistake of counsel does not constitute sufficient cause for extension of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Prejudice to Respondent — Finality in Litigation
Where a matter has been in litigation for many years, granting leave to appeal out of time after a delay of three months would prejudice the respondent and undermine the principle of finality in litigation, particularly where the applicant showed lack of diligence during the proceedings.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (11)

  • Uganda Electronics & Computer Ltd v Katuuma-Magala & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Cause No. 04 of 2006)
  • Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Company Limited and another (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2014)
  • Mugo v Wanjiri [1970] EA 481
  • Pinnacle Projects Limited v Business in Motion Consultants Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
  • Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdner Bank [1971] EA 17
  • GM Combined (U) Limited v AK Detergents (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Rossette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
  • Tiberio Okeny and Another v Attorney General and two others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
  • Captain Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Seruwuge v Kinoni Traders Farmers Co-operative Savings & Credit Society Limited (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 302 (3 April 2024)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.